Chris Charlton

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was only three days ago that I spoke in the House on the labour dispute between striking members of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference and the Canadian National Railway. At that time, we were being asked to pass a motion that would expedite the passage of back-to-work legislation, legislation that at the time, we had not even seen yet. How can we do that? How can the House vote on something it has not seen, something it has not been able to analyze, something it has not been able to discuss in our party caucuses.

I suppose coming from the Conservatives, the party where independent political thinking is rarely apparent and never encouraged, that should not be surprising. The Prime Minister muzzles MPs in his own caucus and tells them what they can say, when and where.

In our caucus, though, we actually want to see the bills we will be voting on before we come into the House to debate them. All too often with the government, they contain poison pills that are not apparent from a cursory review. I do not need to remind members in the House about the purported economic recovery bill that included sections gutting pay equity, killing the court challenges program and other provisions that had nothing to do with helping us get out of the current recession.

Asking us to vote on something before we have even seen it is simply not on. In fact, it is contempt of our rights as members of Parliament, it is contempt of Parliament and it is contempt of the citizens of Canada who sent us here to give voice to their concerns and aspirations.

Here we are in a different context being asked to do the same thing again. Again we are in the situation where we have not had a chance to review the legislation or analyze it in detail, but we certainly know what is at stake. We may not know the details of the legislation, but we are fully aware of the devastating impact that the HST will have on hard-working families and seniors in our country. This is the wrong tax in the wrong hands at the wrong time.

The HST continues the pattern under successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments of pursuing policies that boost returns to a privileged corporate elite on the flimsy excuse that they will use those returns to benefit the rest of them. Three decades of growing income inequality in the country prove those premises false. Every person I have talked to in my riding of Hamilton Mountain understands that reality.

I have asked what they would say if I told them that the federal Conservative government was bribing the provincial Liberal government to raise their taxes by 8%. It sounds crazy does it not? That is exactly what is happening with the introduction of the new harmonized sales tax.

In the 2009-10 provincial budget, the McGuinty Liberals announced that they would be harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal government's goods and services tax, effective July 1, 2010. This change will hurt Ontario families because many items that we need and use every day, from gas and electricity, to cellphones and the Internet, will now be subject to a full 8% tax increase at the point of purchase.

Let me list some of the items that will now cost 8% more because of the imposition of the HST: gasoline, utilities such as heating, hydro and natural gas, vitamins, Internet bills, cellphone bills, snow removal, magazines, adult footwear under $30, camping fees, admissions to things like pools, taking pets to the vet, personal services like hair stylists, professional services like lawyers and accountants, membership fees for things like the gym, green fees, commercial property rentals, landscaping, postal stamps and courier fees, taxi fares, drycleaning, carpet cleaning, funeral costs, labour costs related to home renovations, motor vehicle services like towing or car washing, ice rink rentals and domestic air, rail and commercial bus tickets. All those things will now cost Ontarians 8% more.

As if this blatant tax grab were not bad enough, it may never have happened had the federal Conservative government not bribed its provincial Liberal counterparts to introduce it in the first place. Apparently, Dalton McGuinty was reluctant to introduce such an unfair tax during the recession, so the federal finance minister urged him along by offering the Ontario government an additional $4.3 billion of federal tax money to introduce the new tax increase.

That is right. The federal tax dollars from seniors and hard-working families are hard at work buying them a big, fat provincial tax increase. If the federal government thinks that it can do this with impunity and that the victims of its tax policies will not notice if it does it quickly, it is dead wrong. I have never had as much feedback on a proposed piece of legislation as I have on the HST.

I want to share some of those responses with members here today.

First, let me make one other point absolutely clear. This is not an issue where business is on one side and Canadian citizens are on the other. Thousands of business are also profoundly worried about the impact of this tax.

I had the privilege of being invited to an annual get-together by the Concession Street Business Improvement Association in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. This association represents small businesses on the oldest commercial street in my riding. I had barely been there five minutes when the president of the BIA made it absolutely clear that he is 100% opposed to this tax.

The additional cost imposed on his operations, on everything from heat and electricity to the cost of transportation, will make it increasingly difficult for his family-run business to survive. That sentiment was echoed by dozens of other businesses represented at that event. This tax spells trouble for small businesses.

It is not just on Concession Street that businesses are concerned. Let me share with the House just some of the emails I have received.

One says the following:

I am writing to you to raise concerns about the Ontario government's new harmonized sales tax that will be applied to savings.

I have been running a financial advisory business in your riding for over 10 years, serving more than 200 households in our community. My business not only contributes directly to the economy, but also helps local residents plan for and achieve their financial goals.

I'm very concerned about the HST because it is essentially a new tax on savings. The combined 13% tax will directly impact the savings of all Canadians who own investment funds. It will cost Ontario residents hundreds of million of dollars every year in extra taxes that otherwise could be put into their retirement savings.

I find it difficult to understand why this tax is being introduced when there is growing recognition that most Canadians will retire with inadequate incomes. With government looking to deal with this very serious issue, it makes no sense to be raising taxes for people who have taken the initiative to provide for their future. As a financial advisor, I know how hard it is for the average family to save, and they should not be penalized for it.

The GST should never have been applied to investment funds and the HST will significantly expand its harmful impact on Ontario citizens. I urge you to discuss this with the Finance Minister...and to support a fair solution.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

That is from Daniel, who works for L&A Financial Group FundEX Investments in Hamilton.

Here is another email. It says:

As a REALTOR in your riding, I'm writing today to express my concern about the possible implementation of a harmonized sales tax in the province of Ontario.

If that happens, it will have a devastating effect on the housing market, both new and resale.

I'm sure you've seen recent studies done by the Building Industry and Land Development Association indicating that harmonization would add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new housing in Ontario.

But harmonization would also have a dramatic negative effect on the resale housing market as well.

For example, harmonization would result in provincial sales tax being applied to legal fees, appraisal fees, real estate commissions, moving expenses, home staging services, landscaping and more services usually associated with real estate transactions. In addition, harmonization would result in the goods and services tax being applied to items such as mortgage insurance premiums and title insurance fees.

As you know, the real estate market has been hit hard by the current recession, with unit sales dropping 25-50% in many parts of the province. Now is surely not the time to impose new taxes on the real estate sector when we need economic stimulus to grow the Ontario economy.

As an educated professional in the Hamilton area, I feel that it is my social responsibility to voice my opinion on matters that will have a strongly negative impact on our community! I do NOT understand how our government can pose such an unresponsible taxation policy like this one at such a critical time. As you know, housing plays a vital role in stimulating our economy...it is a major role in creating and maintaining employment. This harmonizing tax will continue to decrease consumer spending....AND THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR SUCH A STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE TAXATION POLICY...let's encourage spending in our economy!!!

...[H]armonization is bad for the housing market, bad for the Ontario economy and bad for consumers wishing to buy and sell homes in Ontario. If we continue to drive housing prices down through irresponsible and greedy policies we may soon find ourselves in the housing and financial CRISIS that our troubled American neighbours are in!

That is from Mike, who is a sales representative in the real estate industry.

Here is a third one:

My husband and I have fractional ownership in a resort in Muskoka.... We have found out that if the HST legislation is passed that the Provincial government is looking to collect taxes retroactive for the past 7 years, resulting in an additional $750. For those looking to purchase an interval, the HST will add an additional $10,000 to the cost of purchasing. This is totally unfair! For the current shareholders trying to sell these intervals and continue the expansion...the HST will slow or stop sales thereby potentially deterring the future development and putting the tax burden on a few.This tax will cause undue hardship on our desire to have a vacation retreat and a place for our children to use. The HST will also increase our maintenance fees by approximately $250+ a year.

...we are requesting that when the vote comes up in Parliment this week that you will vote No on behalf of the owners...and the people of Ontario.

We appreciate all you are doing for us in Parliament. Thanks for your attention to this issue and we look forward to a strong 'No' vote.

That is from Paul and Mary, also in my riding.

Echoing the concerns of small businesses are the voices of Ontario seniors. I quote:

We keep hearing that the present party in power of the Federal Government thinks that the H.S.T. for Ontario is a good idea. However we don't hear much from them on this subject only from McGuinty and his party, can you enlighten me on this subject.

If this is in fact the truth what are these politicians thinking at a time when the economy is basically in the toilet for a lot of people?

Adding this extra tax burden on necessities of life ie: heating, hydro etc. is a disgrace. I would like to know how they expect people on fixed incomes, low incomes or welfare are expected to come up with the extra money for this tax, some of these people are barely getting by now?

That is from Yvonne.

Here is another one:

I am a senior that must work part-time to be able to maintain my home and sustain a reasonable level of daily living and I am very concerned with regard to the blending of the two taxes.

Every day we are hearing that this utility, (hydro, water, sewer rates, bus fares, garbage collection, etc.) or real estate taxes are going up and we are just expected to be able to find the money from our megre income to meet these new obligations. If we are able to drive a car the ever increasing cost of gasoline with the government taxes makes it almost impossible to utilize the vehicle without being required to sacrifice somewhere else in the household budget. With the cost of heating fuels going through the roof it is becoming almost impossible to heat your quarters without being deprived of some other part of your budget. Now !! the government proposes to blend these two taxes that will further increase the tax on heating fuels. Do these people have any idea what the average senior lives through each month just to get by. Where in God's name do they expect seniors to get the extra costs from - when the well is dry—the well is dry!! The government suggests the blending will make it easier and cheaper for industry to buy equipment, manufacture, operate, etc. In other words—seniors may not be able to make it through the month but, industry will—God help us all!! Oh!! but, in some instances we get a tax benefit at the end of the year to make up for the cost through the year. I would like one—just one—member of any government to tell me how this year end benefit helps any senior make it to the end of the year to get the damn benefit.

That is from Ms. Pattinson, also in my riding.

I have yet another email:

I would like you to add our objections to any petition or other document you may have in your possession in connection with the proposed harmonization of the GST AND PST. We are seniors and have seen our RRIF PORTFOLIO, as has everyone else I know, drop so that we are not sure it will be sufficient to cover our needs in the future.

From information I have been reading it seems to be that this proposed harmonization of taxes could affect our mutual funds inside of our RIFF Portfolio, but then again we are not sure if our understanding is correct or not. Also believe the intention may apply to home heating fuel or low cost meals.

Being a member of Carp we are kept pretty well up-to-date on the proposals being sought by the governments.

Thank you for your support to seniors in the past.

That is from Mr. and Mrs. Drumm in my riding.

It is not just seniors. The outrage goes to every part of my community. Here is another one:

This is no time to raise taxes when families are barely making ends now as it is! Shame on you!

That was from Rosa and Ken.

Clementina says:

Please tell the Members of Parliament that the government already takes too much of our money they don't need this extra tax! Thank you.

Claire and Marion add:

This is just another tax grab. Leave the taxation system as it is now. We already pay too much.

Diane and Mike comment:

Here we have a situation whith many Canadians losing their homes and government's not taking a sympathetic action to help. All they want it to rip us off, yet again! Disgraceful!

Cyril mentions that:

Taxpayers were robbed to bail out the rich and corrupt. Now it seems we must give up our cash in case they want more. Call it what they like, HST or BST only changes the name of the animal not the odor.

Jutta implores:

Do not raise taxes on items every low income family with children needs. Raise the taxes on properties and other things that people spend money on when they have extra. We owe in Ontario approximately 24.5 billion—it has to be reduced and slowly paid back.

Tom, Betty and Bob believe that:

With Liberals supporting Tories on this tax, I hope more people will realize that Liberals are just small 't' Tories! They don't support average people!

Walter Young adds that:

I think or I know it is disgusting that the Conservative government and the Ontario Liberal government have lied and taxed people to the hilt and expect to get blood out of a stone with the Harmonized Sales Tax.

The quotes go on and on.

Someone else mentions:

We are taxed to death now. How can we buy anything new to help the economy along when this taxing never ends?

Finally, a family states:

Things are already too high. People are already finding it hard to make ends meet. This is a ridiculous and uncaring action towards the people of Ontario. What happened to helping and working for the people?

Madam Speaker, I see you signalling that my time is up. In essence, you are making the point for me. I said at the outset that Canadians are outraged by this new tax and that they must be heard. Yet sufficient time to do that in this House does not exist.

It does not exist because the government refuses to allow the normal parliamentary process to govern this debate. It refuses to allow a fulsome debate of the issues raised by taxpayers through us, their elected representatives, in the House of Commons. It refuses to allow taxpayers to speak for themselves by allowing for full public hearings on this important matter.

The government can muzzle their voices in this House, but the Conservatives will not be able to muzzle them at the ballot box. I can say with certainty that my constituents on Hamilton Mountain will not be silenced. They were the innocent victims in this recession. Their government promised them help. Now they are being played for fools by both the Liberal and Conservatives Parties in this House. It is outrageous, wrong-headed and unforgiveable.

As Dan and Judy wrote to me:

Just another perk for big business. Two less votes for the Liberals and Conservatives.

It is not too late for members to start listening to their constituents. There is still time for all members to ask themselves, which side am I on?

If we really represent the best interests of our constituents, we will be voting no on this regressive tax.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition today that was signed by dozens of people from Saskatchewan.

The petitioners point out that they have paid into EI all of their working lives, but now that they need the safety net they themselves built, it is no longer there for them.

They therefore call for a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system. Specifically, they call for a standardized 360 hours to qualify, an increased benefit period of at least 50 weeks, the elimination of the two-week waiting period, benefits at 60% of normal earnings based on the best 12 weeks and a bigger investment in training and retraining.

The petitioners are keenly aware that successive Liberal and Conservative governments diverted $54 billion of worker and employer contributions to EI and used that money to pay down the debt and deficit rather than used it to provide help for the involuntarily unemployed during economic downturns. That misappropriation only heightens the moral obligation for the government to restore the integrity of the EI system.

To that end, they call upon the government to respect the will of Parliament and act immediately on the comprehensive NDP motion that was passed in the House of Commons to restore the integrity of the employment insurance system.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is a superb question. It really goes to the heart of why the Afghan committee has had such a difficult time with getting answers. I will give examples of three documents that we have been asking for.

We want to see the memos and responses from Richard Colvin. This is the man who is constantly under attack by government members. Let us see what those memos are. We also want to see records of site visits to Afghan prisons. We want to see the records requested by the Military Police Complaints Commission. In order for members to do the work that they have been sent here to do on behalf of their constituents, we need access to those documents.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I have just been asked to put a price on human rights. I cannot believe that the member is asking me what the value of human rights is in dollar terms. The reality here is that we do not know what has been happening to Afghan detainees.

The member asks how else the government could spend money. Let me give him some really concrete examples. The reality is that, as much as it spouts the rhetoric of supporting our troops, when our troops come home after having served our country, they receive almost no support from the government. I wonder if members in the House actually know that troops coming home out of the theatre of war are entitled to 10 hours of counselling for post-traumatic stress.

The member started off by saying that Mr. Colvin's testimony raised some questions for him. Other testimonies have raised questions for other members in the House. That is precisely the point of having an inquiry. We do not have all of the answers. What we do know for sure is that some of the generals who testified before the committee said that they had not actually been able to do site inspections.

Let me give three quotations. General Hillier said, “That was not part of our mandate in the agreement”. Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier said, “Exactly right and I made reference to that in my comments, that our soldiers weren't trained human rights monitors--”

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly change the wording of the exact quote. It read:

[The Prime Minister's] government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security forces faced the possibility of torture, abuse and extrajudicial killing.

On April 25, 2007, Colvin filed four reports on detainees, including two formal ones sent to senior officials in Ottawa, including the head of the Afghanistan task force.

On April 29, 2007, Conservatives continued to deny detainee abuse, by saying:

We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture. If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down,

That was the current Minister of Public Safety on CTV's Question Period.

On October 28, 2009, the NDP foreign affairs critic and member for Ottawa Centre tabled a motion that read:

That the Committee hold hearings regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees from the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities.

The motion was adopted by the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. It was in front of that committee that Richard Colvin gave his explosive testimony. Colvin, who was stationed in Afghanistan in 2006, testified that torture was standard operating procedure and that it was likely all Afghan prisoners handed over by Canadian Forces were subjected to torture.

Colvin filed multiple reports on prisoner treatment, sending them to more than 70 senior military and government officials. No government action was taken in response to the reports, and he and others were told by senior Canadian government officials to stop putting their concerns in writing.

The current defence minister responded by characterizing Colvin's testimony as “not credible or as unproven allegations based on lies by Taliban prisoners”.

Emails obtained by the media show that the Prime Minister's Office was warned in 2006 of the abuse concerns. A former government official has said that it was virtually impossible that the minister would not have at least been briefed about the torture concerns.

In fact, despite the defence minister's contention last week that not a single Taliban prisoner turned over by Canadian Forces can be proven to have been abused, the transfer of detainees to Afghans was stopped twice in 2007.

I thought the editorial in last week's, Globe and Mail made the point, spot on:

The federal government's dissembling on abuse Afghan detainees suffered after they left the hands of Canadian Forces is now transparent. The government must be held to account...If Canada knew about torture, and allowed it to continue, the government needs to say so, and say why. Instead of more attacks on public servants, Canadians deserve unconditioned and complete answers.

The only way Canadians are going to get those answers is through a full public inquiry. The inquiry must have access to all government documents relevant to the torture of Afghan detainees.

If the government has been truthful with Canadians, then it has nothing to fear from the inquiry, but Canadians have a lot to gain and they have a right to know. The treatment of Afghan detainees is about human rights and it is about justice.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. would remind us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on our NDP opposition day motion calling for a public inquiry into prisoner torture in Afghanistan.

Judging by some of the emails my office has received after commenting on this issue on CTV's Power Play, there are some Canadians who think it is a waste of time to try to get to the bottom of this issue. I am happy to note, by the way, that none of those emails came from constituents in my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

One man referred to the detainees as “scumbags”, another as “local bandidos”. The inference is that what happens to Afghan detainees does not much matter because they are, to put it mildly, unsympathetic characters.

Less obliquely, government members and indeed the Prime Minister shamefully suggest that if I stand up to oppose the torture of Afghan prisoners, I am siding with the enemy instead of supporting the brave men and women in our own armed services.

Let me start by making one thing absolutely clear. The reason we need to get to the bottom of the allegations that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan is because we put our diplomats and soldiers on the ground at risk. Canadian troops serve our country with valour and honour, and they do so by engaging in accordance with the law.

This issue is not just about morality and altruism. It is about the law. Canada ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and it wrote it into Canadian law by passing both section 269.1 of the Criminal Code and Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. There is no ambiguity. It is illegal to hand over prisoners of war when torture is a known possibility. Turning a blind eye to torture is not supporting our troops.

Our troops are in Afghanistan to stop human rights violations, not to be complicit in them. Our armed forces need to know that when they are following orders, they are not being asked to commit crimes against humanity. The cover-up is endangering our soldiers and hurting our mission by turning Afghans against us. It is precisely because I support our troops that I support this call for a public inquiry into the allegations of prisoner abuse.

Frankly, I would be happy if we could get to the bottom of this matter without the drawn-out process of a public inquiry, but the Conservative government has consistently covered-up its role in the Afghan scandal and Canadians deserve unconditioned and complete answers.

Let me remind members of the House that this issue did not just surface with Richard Colvin's testimony two weeks ago. In fact, the NDP's former defence critic, Dawn Black, was the first to raise the treatment of Afghan detainees in the House as far back as April of 2006.

The government stonewalled in its replies. Legitimate attempts by Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to find out what was going on were similarly delayed. The Conservatives used every available dodge, including Canada's anti-terror laws, to shut down a lawful inquiry by its own Military Police Complaints Commission.

The government does not want Canadians to learn the truth. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom rightly points out, that is why:

--in its usual brutal fashion, the government is attempting to turn this affair into a referendum on the Taliban.

Essentially, it is arguing that anyone who complains about torturing Afghan prisoners is either a traitor or a Taliban dupe.

The Conservatives know that the best defence is a good offence as they are scrambling to save their ministers from having to resign because they most likely have misled both Parliament and Canadians. However, for once, let us leave politics out of this.

In reality, the prisoner transfer protocols that may have contributed to the problem were the work of the former Liberal government, not the Conservatives. The original agreements were already in place when the Conservatives took office in 2006, but that is not the point. The point is that Canadians deserve answers. Who knew that the detainees who were handed over to Afghan authorities were routinely tortured? When did they know about it and what did they do about it?

Let me lay out part of the chronology that is now part of the public record.

On April 5, 2006, NDP defence critic Dawn Black called on the Conservatives to ensure Canada's prisoner transfer agreement reflected “our values as Canadians”. The then defence minister and member of Parliament for Carleton—Mississippi Mills declined. He said, “We have no intention of redrafting the agreement...there is no need to make any change in the agreement”.

On May 26, 2006, Richard Colvin, political director of the provincial reconstruction team, filed his first “serious, imminent and alarming” action message on Afghan detainees.

On March 19, 2007, the then defence minister and member of Parliament for Carleton—Mississippi Mills apologized for telling the House of Commons that the Red Cross would share information with Ottawa about alleged abuses of detainees after Canadian troops handed them over to Afghan authorities.

On April 20, 2007, Colvin filed an action message with 71 addresses in foreign affairs and national defence, including the provost marshal.

On April 23, 2007, Graeme Smith wrote in the Globe and Mail:

Afghans detained by Canadian soldiers and sent to Kandahar's notorious jails say they were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation.

On April 24, 2007, Colvin sent an action message on detainees as chargé d'affaires of the diplomatic mission in Afghanistan, and a response to the diplomatic contingency plan drafted by national security adviser to the Prime Minister.

Again, on April 24, 2007, the NDP leader and MP for Toronto—Danforth called on the Prime Minister to fire the defence minister. The Prime Minister denies reports of abuse and blames the Taliban. He said:

Allegations to the effect that we are not living up to our responsibilities are only being made by the Taliban.

On April 25, 2007, a Globe and Mail article read:

The Harper government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security—

[World AIDS Day, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in this place which so often generates more heat than light, I want to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians who act where government fails. One area where this is painfully obvious is in our response to HIV-AIDS.

Organizations such as the Hamilton AIDS Network are doing incredible work in preventing HIV transmission, and recognizing and responding to the stigma and challenges posed by HIV-AIDS. But, instead of partnering with NGOs on their essential programs, the government is forcing them to do more with less.

The same is true for the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign that was launched by the Stephen Lewis Foundation. Volunteers are dedicating themselves to ensuring that whether one lives or dies with HIV is not determined by one's race, gender or citizenship.

The government could so easily support these efforts by passing the NDP's Bill C-393, but instead, it puts the needs of big pharma ahead of the need to win the battle against AIDS in the global human family.

On this World AIDS Day, I want to salute the Hamilton AIDS Network and the Grandmothers of Steel for their compassion and commitment. I want to challenge the government to support their efforts with resources instead of just rhetoric.

[Request for Emergency Debate, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you consider allowing us to hold an emergency debate in this House to discuss the strike at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum. That strike is now in its 10th week. We believe that it is very important for the government to be fully aware of this rather urgent situation.

The role of the government is twofold. The federal government has jurisdiction in this matter as the museum falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is important for people to know what the intentions of the government are, if any, in responding to this issue.

The second important reason is that the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum are important to thousands of Canadians from right across this country. I would like to point out that people were very respectful of the picket lines this past Remembrance Day, but Canadians value and miss access to their museums.

I believe that the House of Commons must address this important issue. By controlling the museum's purse strings, the government is already a silent party at the negotiating table and we must have the opportunity to explore the response of the Government of Canada to this legal strike.

I believe the situation is analogous to the recent strike by OC Transpo for which a debate was granted under Standing Order 52 on January 28 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving this request your urgent attention and careful consideration.

[Petitions, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today that is part of a national campaign calling for a commission of inquiry into aviation safety.

The petitioners are concerned that Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board are failing in their duty to protect the safety of Canadians who travel by air and those who work in the industry. The petitioners believe that this is a disaster waiting to happen. Transport Canada and the TSB have developed a culture of secrecy where whistleblowers are persecuted and fatal accidents are seen as just a cost of doing business.

The petitioners believe that Canadians are being stonewalled by both agencies when trying to get answers about aviation accidents, that they are persecuted when they point out safety issues, and that the federal government is planning to remove itself from its duties to inspect and to enforce safety regulations simply in order to save money and reduce Crown liability.

The petitioners are aware of the government's attempt to push forward self-serve safety and are deeply troubled by that. They are worried about the government's desire to privatize or outsource transportation safety standards and they want that process to stop. As a result, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to initiate a commission of inquiry to conduct a judicial review and examine the state of national aviation safety.

I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf.

[Labour, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, instead of using her power to have both sides in the CN Rail strike resolve their differences at the bargaining table, the Minister of Labour has instead put Parliament in an untenable position. The minister is asking us to rush through a bill that we have not even seen yet.

Instead of introducing legislation in a manner that is disrespectful to the House and, more important, disrespectful to the parties involved in this dispute, why will the minister not do everything in her power to get the two sides back to the bargaining table?